A FRAMEWORK FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
ARCHITECTURE
Emad Farazmand
Islamic Azad University, Mahshahr Branch, Mahshahr, Iran
Ali Moeini
Department of Algorithms and Computation, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Enterprise architecture, Zachman framework, Knowledge management, Planning.
Abstract: Many organizations began to reexamine and rearrange their business strategies, processes, information
technologies, and organizational structures from a knowledge perspective. Adoption and assimilation of the
knowledge management paradigm requires the design and establishment of structures, processes, and
technologies along with organizational knowledge resources. The knowledge differs from the data and
information by origin. Many experiences about preexisting methods for information system planning are
still usable for knowledge management planning. One of the well known of them is enterprise architecture
and specially Zachman framework. This paper is about customization of Zachman framework for defining
knowledge management architecture in an enterprise.
1 INTRODUCTION
Many practices for knowledge management
planning is still based on preexisting methods for
information system planning, specially for
identifying core knowledge and designing its
management processes (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars,
2001). Knowledge is differing from data and
information by origin (Kim, et al 2003) and because
of this knowledge management planning methods is
differing from information system planning
methods. But many experiences around Information
system planning could be useful for knowledge
management planning practices and between them is
enterprise architecture.
One of the most well known methods for
information system planning is enterprise
architecture that John Zachman introduced first time
in 1987 in his paper entitled Framework for
Information Systems Architecture. He presented the
Zachman framework for enterprise architecture. The
Zachman Framework provides a common context
for understanding a complex structure. The
Framework enables communication among the
various participants involved in developing or
changing the structure. Architecture is the glue that
holds the structure together. The Framework defines
sets of architectures that contain the development
pieces of the structure. (Federal 1999).
This paper is trying to present an architecture
framework for knowledge management. In next
section some considerations about knowledge
management planning will be discussed. After that
there is a brief introduction to Zachman framework
and the rules between columns, rows and cells. Then
in part 4, based on knowledge management planning
considerations and rules of Zachman framework, a
framework has been developed for knowledge
management planning. Finally there is conclusion
about this paper.
2 KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIC
PLANNING
While knowledge is recognized as a critical resource
for sustained competitive advantages,
implementation of knowledge management remains
a main challenge to an organization (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998; Demarest, 1997; Grant, 1997; Nonaka
425
Farazmand E. and Moeini A..
A FRAMEWORK FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURE.
DOI: 10.5220/0003492504250430
In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2011), pages 425-430
ISBN: 978-989-8425-56-0
Copyright
c
 2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

& Takeuchi, 1995; Teece, 1998; Wiig, 1997)
requiring vast amounts of organizational resources,
diverse techniques, and related tools calling for a
solid and deliberate plan from the beginning
(Davenport, DeLong, & Beers, 1998).
However many experiences in information
system planning and implementation could be useful
in knowledge management initiatives but knowledge
is differing from data and information by origin
(Kim et al 2003) and because of this, knowledge
strategic planning, should be implemented by
regarding these differences. Knowledge or
knowledge management specific features that
differentiate knowledge strategy planning from
information strategy planning discussed below:
First, knowledge should be distinguished from
information or data. Although some practitioners or
scholars tend to be indifferent to this issue (Alavi &
Leidner, 2001), lack of distinction between
knowledge and information is one of the major
reasons why knowledge strategy planning is
confused with information systems planning.
Second, types of knowledge influence the design
of knowledge management processes. In the case of
information, similar techniques or processes can be
applied to various types of information once their
models are built up. On the other hand, different
types of knowledge require different strategies,
processes, or methods to manage them (Alavi &
Leidner, 2001; Bohn, 1994).
Third, early knowledge management efforts
should focus on a peculiar area of an organization
where knowledge is more intensely created or
utilized than in other areas (Davenport et al., 1996;
Davenport & Prusak, 1998). A knowledge-intensive
area such as an R&D division would be a good
alternative for initiating knowledge management
(Davenport et al., 1996). After launching a
knowledge management initiative for such area,
related results and experiences can be easily diffused
throughout the organization. In case of prevailing
information systems planning methods such as the
business systems planning (IBM Corporation, 1975)
and information engineering (Martin, 1989), their
scopes of planning and implementation tend to be an
entire organization, or, ‘top-down’.
Finally, knowledge contains human cognitive
and social activities. In knowledge management, the
primary subject that takes charge of creating,
storing, interpreting, and utilizing knowledge is a
human being, not an information system. In carrying
out these works, human beings perform various
cognitive activities such as a metaphor, analogy,
deduction, mental modeling, and so on (Hori, 2000;
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). For that reason, some
knowledge is often processed in an unstructured
form (Hori, 2000) and most of it cannot be
represented explicitly.
3 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
AND ENTERPRISE
ARCHITECTURE
In 1987, John Zachman published a paper in the
IBM systems Journal identifying what he called “A
Framework for Information System Architecture”.
In his paper, Zachman said “ In any event, it is likely
will be necessary to develop some kind of
framework for rationalizing the various architectural
concepts and specifications in order to provide for
clarity of professional communication, to allow for
improving and integrating development
methodologies and tools, and to establish credibility
and confidence in the investment of system
resources.” And also he introduced his architectural
framework as linkage between business strategy and
information system strategy.
Zachman discussed about two ideas in his
framework. First, There is a set of architectural
representations produced over the process of
building a complex engineering product representing
the different prospective of different participants and
second, the same product can be described, for
different purposes, in different ways, resulting in
different types of descriptions.
Regarding this two ideas, Zachman introduced
his framework with rows that represent the different
perspectives about the organization and its systems
that are “planner”, “owner”, “designer”, “builder”
and “subcontractor” perspective. Also each column
represents the different aspects of an organization
and its systems.
By take a glance on Zachman framework; there
are six architectures that may be considered in
enterprise architecture: data (entity) architecture,
application (process) architecture, technology
(location) architecture, organization (people)
architecture, schedule (time sequence) architecture,
and motivation architecture.
Also Kim et al. (2003) talks about four main
architectures in knowledge strategic planning. These
architectures are: (1) Knowledge architecture, which
incorporates both of knowledge and expert maps; (2)
Knowledge management process architecture, which
defines knowledge management activities and their
relationships; (3) Organization architecture, which
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
426

designs an organization structure for seamlessly
carrying out knowledge management processes; and
(4) Information technology architecture, which
integrates information technologies or tools for
supporting knowledge management.
Comparing these four architectures with
Zachman framework, in the next section a
framework for knowledge management architecture
has been introduced.
4 THE PROPOSED
FRAMEWORK
As said in previous section, there are four main
focuses in knowledge management architecture
planning that are knowledge architecture, knowledge
management process architecture, organization
architecture and information technology
architecture. Comparing theses four architectures
with Zachman framework, it is obvious that process,
organization and technology architecture is same in
both. But data has replaced with knowledge. Data
and knowledge both are entity kind objects and are
replaceable with each other. Based on these issues a
framework like table 1 has been developed for
knowledge management architecture planning. In
the rest of this section different perspectives about
different focuses will be discussed specially about
knowledge column in the proposed framework.
Table 1: Proposed framework for knowledge management
Architecture.
4.1 Knowledge Architecture
The knowledge architecture is a result of classifying
organizational knowledge by one or more
dimensions. It represents the whole structure of an
organizational knowledge and related information.
Glazer (1998) referred to knowledge architecture as
‘meta-knowledge’, namely, knowledge about
knowledge. Meta-knowledge is ‘the information on
the configuration of organizational knowledge and
the structure of its storage, which makes knowledge
assets intelligently accessible to people’ (Glazer,
1998). In this section, different architectural views
about knowledge architecture have been reviewed.
4.1.1 Planner Perspective about Knowledge
Architecture
Planner view is an overview or estimate of the scope
of the system, what it would cost, and how it would
relate to the general environment in which it will
operate (federal 1999). Therefore in planners view
about knowledge architecture, at first it is useful to
recognize required knowledge to satisfy knowledge
management objectives and goals in the
organization. In fact in planner perspective the scope
of knowledge that should be regarded in planning
will be defined. To recognize the required
knowledge, it is useful to classify organizational
knowledge according to different dimensions.
Recognizing the knowledge type in organization
is essential because different types of knowledge
require different strategies, processes, or methods to
manage them (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Bohn, 1994;
Junnarkar, 1997). On the other hand, using multiple
dimensions in classifying the organizational
knowledge makes it possible to identify an
exhaustive set of organizational knowledge in
knowledge strategy planning. If knowledge is
classified only by its creation mode (experiential vs.
analytical), for example, it is difficult to deal with its
tacit, implicit, or explicit aspects properly.
Therefore, it is recommendable to combine several
dimensions in classifying knowledge. (Kim 2003)
According to literature, there are several
dimensions for classifying the knowledge in
organization such as explicit knowledge vs. implicit
and tacit, experiential knowledge vs. analytical
knowledge (Kim 2003), personal knowledge vs.
group, organizational and external knowledge (Dutta
1997). Dimensions for classifying organizational
knowledge would be selected based on the planners’
idea and the nature of organizational working model
and the knowledge embedded.
4.1.2 Owner Perspective about Knowledge
Architecture (Knowledge Map)
In enterprise architecture the owners perspective
refers to enterprise (business) models, which
constitute the designs of the business and show the
business entities and processes and how they relate
(Federal 1999). Correspondingly, it seems that the
knowledge map is suitable alternative for
A FRAMEWORK FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURE
427

representation of knowledge existence as an entity
and its relationships all over the organization.
Developing a knowledge map of an organization
is a critical component of knowledge management.
This is typically part of the knowledge audit step
that attempts to identify stories, sinks, and
constraints dealing with knowledge in a targeted
business area, and then identifies what knowledge is
missing and available, who has the knowledge, and
how that knowledge is used. A knowledge map will
then be drawn to depict those relationships in that
organization. (Liebowitz 2001)
Knowledge maps and knowledge mapping has
been said to be about facilitating efficient knowledge
sharing between organizational members, and
sometimes also with the outside world (Hellström
2004). Wexler (2001) has further suggested that
knowledge maps must be problem-oriented; they
have to address and attempt to solve a specific
problem, and that problem orientation must be a
central concern already early in the process of
constructing a knowledge map. Problem orientation
can take place in several different domains, for
instance knowledge maps may be oriented toward
identifying intellectual resources, socializing new
members of an organizations, anticipating new
opportunities, and stimulating learning and change
(Wexler, 2001).
Duffy (2000) refers to knowledge maps as
“navigational systems that enable users to find the
answers they seek”. As such the knowledge map is a
key tool for representing the whole range of
“knowledge objects”, across categories and
locations, as well as the links between these objects.
In other words a knowledge map is a constructed
architecture of a knowledge domain. In this regard
knowledge maps address at least two organizational
needs with respect to knowledge:
(1) Increased transparency as to the location of
valuable knowledge in the organization, thereby
making knowledge more accessible; and
(2) Stronger support for development of a
common context on which employees can draw in
the search for knowledge, as well as in creating new
knowledge.
There are no standard or uniformity of how to
create knowledge map (Liebowitz 2001) and usually
a graphical method is used to create the knowledge
map of an organization. Selection of suitable
knowledge mapping method depends on the types of
knowledge embedded in organization and
knowledge relation structure in organization.
4.1.3 Logical and Physical Knowledge
Repository
Corresponding to logical and physical data models,
in data column of Zachman framework, in the
proposed framework for knowledge management
there are logical and physical knowledge models that
also can be called as logical and physical knowledge
repositories.
According to Turban (2001) knowledge
repository is a collection of both external and
internal knowledge and the structure of the
repository is highly dependent on the kind of
knowledge stored. The repository can range from
simply a list of frequently asked questions and
solutions to a listing of individuals with there
expertise and contact information to detailed best
practices for a large organization (Turban, 2001).
Knowledge repositories capture explicit, codified
information wrapped in varying levels of context.
They are used to store and make accessible “what
we know” as an organization. (Ruggles,1998).
Knowledge repository is the place to store
knowledge both implicit and explicit.
In fact Knowledge repository may be a FAQ
(Turban, 2001) or may be a data warehouse
(Ruggles, 1998) or any other structures. The
structure of a knowledge repository should be in
adoption with the type of knowledge that it wants to
store. It is against the common methods for
information systems and data storing in which there
is several standard structures for storing and
retrieving data stored.
When organizational knowledge map is
determined, and there is complete awareness about
knowledge types and their relationship in
organization, it is time to determine the logical and
physical structure of knowledge repositories in
organization. Knowledge map specifies the places
and relationships of knowledge, but knowledge
repository specifies the internal structure for storing
and using each type of knowledge in the
organization. Therefore there is just one knowledge
map for the organization, but there may be several
knowledge repositories, up to the diversity of
knowledge types in organization. Also based on
organizational knowledge map, the knowledge
repositories should be in relation with each other.
4.2 Knowledge Process Architecture
In the second column the knowledge management
process architecture is regarded. As said before the
process architecture in proposed framework is like
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
428

process architecture in Zachman framework,
because the nature of process is same for both of
them. Therefore in this section different knowledge
intensive processes have been discussed.
According to (Kim 2003) the knowledge
management process architecture defines a variety
of processes involved in a life cycle of knowledge,
from its creation to termination. Ruggles (1998)
introduce 8 knowledge processes that are: generating
new knowledge, accessing valuable knowledge from
outside sources, using accessible knowledge in
decision making, embedding knowledge in
processes, products, and/or services, representing
knowledge in documents, databases, and software,
facilitating knowledge growth through culture and
incentives, transferring existing knowledge into
other parts of organization and finally measuring the
value of knowledge assets and/or impact of
knowledge management.
Selection of knowledge intensive process is
impacted by the nature of knowledge types in
organization and also the rules, policies and
strategies of organization (Kim, 2003). It is against
the information systems planning in which processes
just are determined by organizational rules and
policies.
In the first row of process column, there is a list
of knowledge intensive processes, which are needed
in the organization. As said before regarding the
nature of knowledge types in organization and
organizational rules and policies this processes are
determined. In the second row of this column there
is a knowledge intensive process model of
organization. This process model shows all the
knowledge intensive processes and their
relationships. In the third row a set of processes are
constructed and reviewed by detail to be embedded
in a knowledge base system (KBS). Thus in this cell,
the architecture of a knowledge base system will be
determined to facilitate the selected processes. To do
so, there should be a detailed description about each
selected process. And finally in the next row there is
the design of specified knowledge base system and
specifying instructions that are understandable by
machine.
4.3 Information Technology
Architecture
The information technology architecture is a
blueprint of a knowledge management system,
namely, a technical infrastructure for knowledge
management. A knowledge management system can
be either a stand-alone information system or the
combination of various information-technologies
(Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Wiig et al., 1997). It defines
various components of a knowledge management
system and their relationships. To design the
architecture, functional requirements of a knowledge
management system should be identified in advance
by considering the other three architectures. Then,
information technologies applicable to realize those
functions are searched, and their interfaces are
designed.
Other descriptions about information technology
architecture are like Zachman framework. Thus here
it’s not essential to discuss about it any more. For
more information about technology architecture,
readers can refer to Zachman paper or other
documents about enterprise architecture such as
Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework
document.
4.4 Organization Architecture
Organization architecture refers to the structure of
human resources in an organization. This column in
the proposed framework is similar to “Who” column
in Zachman framework and refers to organizational
structure.
According to (Kim 2003), the organization
architecture designs organizational structure and
programs for managing human resources.
Organizational structure defines the role of each
knowledge management team responsible for
performing or supporting knowledge management
processes. Various knowledge management teams
and their roles can be organized as necessary, for
example, chief knowledge officer (CKO) (Earl &
Scott, 1999), steering committees, councils, expert
groups, communities of practice (Brown & Duguid,
2001), etc. A program for managing human
resources contains plans for bringing up knowledge
workers through devices such as a reward system,
training programs, or communities for networking
with internal and external experts (Kim, 2003). At
this point the access rules for each member should
be defined, regarding their role in organization.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we examined and customized the
Zachman framework for knowledge management
objectives. The proposed framework is based on the
characteristics of knowledge as an organizational
entity. Regarding the knowledge as an
organizational entity and using the proposed
framework, makes it easier to manage and handle
the organizational knowledge and aligning the
A FRAMEWORK FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURE
429

knowledge management policies with the related
knowledge processes. Also as an advantage for
enterprise architecture method, using proposed
framework results in comperhensive perspective
about the organizational knowledge.
For later researches in this area there could be
studies about efficient methods for knowledge
mapping in an enterprise. Also the studies about the
other columns of Zachman framework and there
relation with the proposed framework may be the
topics of later studies.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: knowledge
management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS
Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
Bohn, R. E. (1994). Measuring and managing
technological knowledge. Sloan Management Review,
36(1), 61–73.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and
organization: a social practice perspective.
Organization Science, 12(2), 141–161.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working
knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Davenport, T. H., DeLong, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998).
Successful knowledge management project. Sloan
Management Review, 39(2), 43–57.
Davenport, T. H., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Beers, M. C. (1996).
Improving knowledge work processes. Sloan
Management Review, 37(4), 53–55.
Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge
management. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 374–384.
Dutta, S., (1997), Strategies for Implementing Knowledge-
Based Systems, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol 44, No 1, 79- 90.
Earl, M, J. & Scott (1999), Opinion: what is a chief
knowledge officer? Sloan Management Review, 40(2),
29–38.
Earl, M. J. (2001). Knowledge management strategies:
Toward taxonomy. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18(1), 215–233.
Federal Chief Information Officer Council, Federal
Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), Version
1.1, September 1999.
Glazer, R. (1998). Measuring the knower: towards a
theory of knowledge equity. California Management
Review, 40(3), 175–194.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).
Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.
Grant, R. M. (1997). The knowledge-based view of the
firm: implications for management practices. Long
Range Planning, 30(3), 450–454.
Hellström, Tomas., Husted, Kenneth., (2004) "Mapping
knowledge and intellectual capital in academic
environments: A focus group study", Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 Iss: 1, pp.165 - 180
Hori, K. (2000). Ontology of strategic knowledge: key
concepts and applications. Knowledge-Based Systems,
13(6), 369–374.
IBM Corporation (1975). Business Strategy Planning-
Information Systems Planning Guide, Publication
#GE-20-0527-4, IBM.
Junnarkar, B. (1997). Leveraging collective intellect by
building organizational capabilities. Expert Systems
with Applications, 13(1), 29–40.
Kim, Y. G., Yu, S. H., Lee, J. H., (2003), Knowledge
strategy planning: Methodology and Case, Expert
Systems with Applications, No 24, 295-307.
Liebowitz, J., (2001), Knowledge Management: Learning
from Knowledge Engineering, CRC Press
Martin, J. (1989). Information engineering: Introduction.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-
creating company. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: knowledge
management in practice. California Management
Review, 40(3), 80–89.
Teece, D. T. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge
assets: the new economy, markets for know-how, and
intangible assets. California Management Review,
40(3), 55–79
Turban, E., Aronson, J.E., Bolloju, N., (2001), Decision
Support System and Intelligent Systems, Prentice Hall,
Upper Suddle River, New Jersey, 6
th
Ed.
Wexler, Mark. N., (2001), The who, what and why of
knowledge mapping, Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5, 3; ABI/INFORM Global, pg. 249
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: where did it
come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with
Applications, 13(1), 1–14.
Wiig, K. M., Hoog, R. De., & Spek, Rob van der (1997).
Supporting knowledge management: a selection of
methods and techniques. Expert systems with
applications, 13(1), 15–27.
Zachman, John A, (1987), A framework for information
systems architecture, IBM Systems Journal 26, No. 3,
276-292
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
430